1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
tresset_1 [31]
3 years ago
7

What caused conflict between various groups of people in the west

History
1 answer:
Gelneren [198K]3 years ago
8 0
<span>At the core of most intractable conflicts are deeply rooted divisions affecting parties' fundamental interests, needs and values. These include irreconcilable moral values, matters of justice and human rights, high-stakes distributional issues, unmet human needs, and issues of identity. Such conflicts tend to be protracted and have very damaging effects.IntroductionIntractable conflicts are ones that remain unresolved for long periods of time and then become stuck at a high level of intensity and destructiveness. They typically involve many parties and concern an intricate set of historical, religious, cultural, political, and economic issues.[1] These matters are central to human social existence and typically resist any attempts at resolution. In fact, parties often refuse to negotiate or compromise with respect to such issues. As a result, each side views the rigid position of the other as a threat to its very existence. They may develop a mutual fear of each other and a profound desire to inflict as much physical and psychological harm on each other as possible.[2] This sense of threat and hostility often pervades the everyday lives of the parties involved and overrides their ability to recognize any shared concerns they might have.<span>


Additional insights into the underlying causes of intractable conflicts are offered by Beyond Intractability project participants.</span>As conflict escalates, any tangible issues may become embedded within a larger set of values, beliefs, identities, and cultures. Disputes about land, money, or other resources may take on increased symbolic significance.[3] Over the course of conflict, the original issues can even become irrelevant as new causes for conflict are generated by actions within the conflict itself. Those on opposing sides come to view each other as enemies and may resort to highly destructive means. Eventually, the parties become unable to separate different issues and may see no way out of the conflict other than through total victory or defeat.[4]Why do some conflicts become intractable? Many describe intractability in terms of the destructive relationship dynamics that govern the adversaries' interaction. For example, if one party resorts to inhumane treatment in waging conflict, this deepens antagonism and may lead the opposing side to seek revenge.[5] Likewise, when extremist political leaders appeal to ethno-nationalist ideology to arouse fear, this may increase support for the use of violence and contribute to intractability. Other factors that make some conflicts extremely difficult to resolve include the vast numbers of people involved, the large number of complex issues to be resolved, and a previous history of violent confrontation. But what are the underlying causes of these destructive conflict dynamics?What is common to all intractable conflicts is that they involve interests or values that the disputants regard as critical to their survival. These underlying causes include parties' moral values, identities, and fundamental human needs. Because conflicts grounded in these issues involve the basic molds for thought and action within given communities and culture, they are usually not resolvable by negotiation or compromise.[6] This is because the problem in question is one that cannot be resolved in a win-win way. If one value system is followed, another is threatened. If one nation controls a piece of land, another does not. If one group is dominant, another is subordinate.While sharing is possible in theory, contending sides usually regard compromise as a loss. This is especially true in societies where natural fear and hatred is so ingrained that opposing groups cannot imagine living with or working cooperatively with the other side. Instead, they are often willing to take whatever means necessary to ensure group survival and protect their way of life. Below are brief summaries of some of the central underlying causes of intractable conflict.</span>
You might be interested in
Why were some nations more affected by wartime food shortages than others? Consider factors like style of government, proximity
Galina-37 [17]

Answer:

Because some nations had fighting taking place on there soil, which led to the destruction of food producers and the theft of pre-existing food. Other nations were already suffering with poverty so conditions were severely worsened by food shortages.

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
How did the women's March mark a turning point in the relationship between the king and the people
8_murik_8 [283]

How did the women's march mark a turning point in the relationship between the king and the people? The king and queens exit that was demanded by the rioting French women that they leave Versailles and return to Pairs signaled the change of power and radical reforms about to overtake France.

3 0
3 years ago
Who was the only military leader charged with, convicted, and sentenced to death for war crimes during the Civil War?
Len [333]
The only leader charged and sentenced to death was Henry Wirz.
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which of the following factors did NOT play a significant role in building support for replacing the Articles of Confederation w
Georgia [21]

Answer:

The answer is A

Explanation:

An oppressive national government

5 0
2 years ago
Did the Native Americans believe that acquiring possessions was an important goal?
ohaa [14]

Answer:

Explanation:At the start of the twentieth century there were approximately 250,000 Native Americans in the USA – just 0.3 per cent of the population – most living on reservations where they exercised a limited degree of self-government. During the course of the nineteenth century they had been deprived of much of their land by forced removal westwards, by a succession of treaties (which were often not honoured by the white authorities) and by military defeat by the USA as it expanded its control over the American West.  

In 1831 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, had attempted to define their status. He declared that Indian tribes were ‘domestic dependent nations’ whose ‘relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian’. Marshall was, in effect, recognising that America’s Indians are unique in that, unlike any other minority, they are both separate nations and part of the United States. This helps to explain why relations between the federal government and the Native Americans have been so troubled. A guardian prepares his ward for adult independence, and so Marshall’s judgement implies that US policy should aim to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream US culture. But a guardian also protects and nurtures a ward until adulthood is achieved, and therefore Marshall also suggests that the federal government has a special obligation to care for its Native American population. As a result, federal policy towards Native Americans has lurched back and forth, sometimes aiming for assimilation and, at other times, recognising its responsibility for assisting Indian development.

What complicates the story further is that (again, unlike other minorities seeking recognition of their civil rights) Indians have possessed some valuable reservation land and resources over which white Americans have cast envious eyes. Much of this was subsequently lost and, as a result, the history of Native Americans is often presented as a morality tale. White Americans, headed by the federal government, were the ‘bad guys’, cheating Indians out of their land and resources. Native Americans were the ‘good guys’, attempting to maintain a traditional way of life much more in harmony with nature and the environment than the rampant capitalism of white America, but powerless to defend their interests. Only twice, according to this narrative, did the federal government redeem itself: firstly during the Indian New Deal from 1933 to 1945, and secondly in the final decades of the century when Congress belatedly attempted to redress some Native American grievances.

3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • How many Native American house sited are underwater
    7·1 answer
  • In the early 1990s when the US. General Accounting Office (GAO) studied the financial effect of service quality on companies tha
    14·1 answer
  • Anaconda plan adopted
    9·1 answer
  • A historian typically begins his work by
    11·2 answers
  • According to the map, what did all of these earliest known civilizations have in common?
    11·1 answer
  • Hello and good morning, todays question is..
    9·1 answer
  • What were ways American rule of Puerto Rico harm the Puerto Rican people
    11·1 answer
  • What did the 9/11 Commission Report reveal about missed opportunities to prevent the attacks?
    8·2 answers
  • Why did some culture areas have fewer groups of people than other culture areas did?
    5·1 answer
  • 5-7 sentences!! help me asap!
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!